CDC Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Anthrax, 2023.

This report updates previous CDC guidelines and recommendations on preferred prevention and treatment regimens regarding naturally occurring anthrax. Also provided are a wide range of alternative regimens to first-line antimicrobial drugs for use if patients have contraindications or intolerances or after a wide-area aerosol release of: Bacillus anthracis spores if resources become limited or a multidrug-resistant B. anthracis strain is used (Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, et al.; Workgroup on Anthrax Clinical Guidelines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis 2014;20:e130687; Meaney-Delman D, Rasmussen SA, Beigi RH, et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of anthrax in pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:885-900; Bradley JS, Peacock G, Krug SE, et al. Pediatric anthrax clinical management. Pediatrics 2014;133:e1411-36). Specifically, this report updates antimicrobial drug and antitoxin use for both postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and treatment from these previous guidelines best practices and is based on systematic reviews of the literature regarding 1) in vitro antimicrobial drug activity against B. anthracis; 2) in vivo antimicrobial drug efficacy for PEP and treatment; 3) in vivo and human antitoxin efficacy for PEP, treatment, or both; and 4) human survival after antimicrobial drug PEP and treatment of localized anthrax, systemic anthrax, and anthrax meningitis. Changes from previous CDC guidelines and recommendations include an expanded list of alternative antimicrobial drugs to use when first-line antimicrobial drugs are contraindicated or not tolerated or after a bioterrorism event when first-line antimicrobial drugs are depleted or ineffective against a genetically engineered resistant: B. anthracis strain. In addition, these updated guidelines include new recommendations regarding special considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of anthrax meningitis, including comorbid, social, and clinical predictors of anthrax meningitis. The previously published CDC guidelines and recommendations described potentially beneficial critical care measures and clinical assessment tools and procedures for persons with anthrax, which have not changed and are not addressed in this update. In addition, no changes were made to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations for use of anthrax vaccine (Bower WA, Schiffer J, Atmar RL, et al. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019. MMWR Recomm Rep 2019;68[No. RR-4]:1-14). The updated guidelines in this report can be used by health care providers to prevent and treat anthrax and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners as they develop and update plans for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis.

Safety and immunogenicity of Px563L, a recombinant anthrax vaccine candidate, in a two-dose regimen for post-exposure prophylaxis in healthy adults.

Px563L is a next-generation anthrax vaccine candidate consisting of a protein subunit, mutant recombinant protective antigen SNKE167-ΔFF-315-E308D (mrPA), and liposome-embedded monophosphoryl lipid A (MPLA) adjuvant. Px563L has the potential to deliver an improved safety and immunogenicity profile relative to the currently licensed vaccine, which is produced from filtered B. anthracis culture supernatants. We conducted a Phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study in 54 healthy subjects to evaluate Px563L at 3 dose levels of mrPA (10, 50, and 80 mcg). For each dose level, 18 subjects were randomized in an 8:8:2 ratio to Px563L (mrPA with adjuvant), RPA563 (mrPA only) or placebo (saline). Each subject received an intramuscular (IM) injection on Day 0 and Day 28. Primary safety and immunogenicity analysis was conducted after all subjects completed the Day70 visit, a duration deemed clinically relevant for post-exposure prophylaxis. Long-term safety was assessed through Day 393. Vaccinations with Px563L at all dose levels were well-tolerated. There were no serious adverse events or adverse events (AE) leading to early withdrawal. In all treatment groups, most AEs were due to injection site reactions, and all AEs at the 10 and 50 mcg dose levels were mild. For the primary immunogenicity endpoint (protective toxin neutralizing antibody 50% neutralization factor [TNA NF50]), titers started to increase significantly after the second administration of Px563L, from Day35 through Day70, with the geometric mean and lower bound of the 95% confidence interval exceeding 0.56, a threshold correlating with significant survival in animal models of anthrax exposure. In conclusion, Px563L, administered as two IM doses 28 days apart, was well-tolerated and elicited a protective antibody response starting at seven days after the second vaccination. These findings support the continued development of Px563L in a two-dose regimen for anthrax post-exposure prophylaxis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02655549.

Is there an association between Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and vaccination? A systematic review.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: It is essential to make sure that vaccines are safe, effective, and of good quality. In the past years, there have been some reports of adverse effects regarding vaccination. One of these adverse effects is the development of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Stevens-Johnson syndrome is a rare, severe, skin disorder, that usually occurs after medication. In Europe, its estimated incidence is of 2-3 cases/million population/year. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate, through a systematic review, the association between vaccination and the development of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. We included studies dated between January 2000 and February 2018. The main selection criterion was the reporting of the disease, following vaccination. RESULTS: Ten studies were selected, from a total of 391 studies. Of these, 5 were case reports, 3 were cohort studies and 2 were case-control. All the studies were regarding cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome after vaccination. The selected studies reported cases following vaccines such as influenza vaccine, smallpox, anthrax and tetanus vaccine, MMR vaccine, varicella vaccine, DTaP-IPV vaccine or rabies vaccine. None of the cohort studies reported statistically significant associations between vaccination and the syndrome. In the case-control studies, it was not observed significant increased risk for the Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the administration of vaccines. Regarding the case reports, there was not sufficient evidence to form a positive association between these two factors, and more studies are needed. CONCLUSIONS: In this review it was not possible to establish a positive relation between vaccination and the development of Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

Use of Anthrax Vaccine in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 2019.

This report updates the 2009 recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding use of anthrax vaccine in the United States (Wright JG, Quinn CP, Shadomy S, Messonnier N. Use of anthrax vaccine in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP)], 2009. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59[No. RR-6]). The report 1) summarizes data on estimated efficacy in humans using a correlates of protection model and safety data published since the last ACIP review, 2) provides updated guidance for use of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and in conjunction with antimicrobials for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), 3) provides updated guidance regarding PrEP vaccination of emergency and other responders, 4) summarizes the available data on an investigational anthrax vaccine (AV7909), and 5) discusses the use of anthrax antitoxins for PEP. Changes from previous guidance in this report include the following: 1) a booster dose of AVA for PrEP can be given every 3 years instead of annually to persons not at high risk for exposure to Bacillus anthracis who have previously received the initial AVA 3-dose priming and 2-dose booster series and want to maintain protection; 2) during a large-scale emergency response, AVA for PEP can be administered using an intramuscular route if the subcutaneous route of administration poses significant materiel, personnel, or clinical challenges that might delay or preclude vaccination; 3) recommendations on dose-sparing AVA PEP regimens if the anthrax vaccine supply is insufficient to vaccinate all potentially exposed persons; and 4) clarification on the duration of antimicrobial therapy when used in conjunction with vaccine for PEP.These updated recommendations can be used by health care providers and guide emergency preparedness officials and planners who are developing plans to provide anthrax vaccine, including preparations for a wide-area aerosol release of B. anthracis spores. The recommendations also provide guidance on dose-sparing options, if needed, to extend the supply of vaccine to increase the number of persons receiving PEP in a mass casualty event.

Vaccines against anthrax based on recombinant protective antigen: problems and solutions.

Introduction: Anthrax is a dangerous bio-terror agent because Bacillus anthracis spores are highly resilient and can be easily aerosolized and disseminated. There is a threat of deliberate use of anthrax spores aerosol that could lead to serious fatal diseases outbreaks. Existing control measures against inhalation form of the disease are limited. All of this has provided an impetus to the development of new generation vaccines. Areas сovered: This review is devoted to challenges and achievements in the design of vaccines based on the anthrax recombinant protective antigen (rPA). Scientific databases have been searched, focusing on causes of PA instability and solutions to this problem, including new approaches of rPA expression, novel rPA-based vaccines formulations as well as the simultaneous usage of PA with other anthrax antigens. Expert opinion: PA is a central anthrax toxin component, playing a key role in the defense against encapsulated and unencapsulated strains. Subunit rPA-based vaccines have a good safety and protective profile. However, there are problems of PA instability that are greatly enhanced when using aluminum adjuvants. New adjuvant compositions, dry formulations and resistant to proteolysis and deamidation mutant PA forms can help to handle this issue. Devising a modern anthrax vaccine requires huge efforts.

Immunogenicity and safety of a novel recombinant protective antigen anthrax vaccine (GC1109), a randomized, single-blind, placebo controlled phase II clinical study.

BACKGROUND: The demand on effective and safe anthrax vaccine is increasing as a part of the preparedness for possible bioterrorism in the future. We performed a randomized, single-blind, placebo controlled phase II clinical study to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of a novel recombinant protective antigen (rPA) anthrax vaccine, GC1109, in healthy adult volunteers. METHODS: Participants were randomized to experiment groups (0.3 mL, 0.5 mL, and 1.0 mL of GC1109) or placebo group (normal saline 0.5 mL) in 2:2:2:1 ratio. They received respective vaccines intramuscularly at 0, 4 and 8 weeks. Immunogenicity was evaluated by seroconversion rate and geometric mean titer (GMT) of lethal toxin neutralizing assay (TNA) and anti-PA IgG by ELISA. Safety was assessed by laboratory tests, and solicited and unsolicited adverse events on diary cards. RESULTS: 30, 29, 30 participants were randomized to 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 mL of GC1109 groups, respectively, while 15 to placebo group. 92 participants received all three doses. In per-protocol analysis, TNA GMTs at week 12 were 296.5, 285.2, and 433.2 in the three groups, respectively. Seroconversion rates measured by ELISA were 100% at week 12 in the three groups. Local and systemic vaccine-related adverse events were frequent; however, most of them were mild, and no serious events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A new rPA anthrax vaccine GC1109 was immunogenic after three doses of intramuscular administration, and was well-tolerated.

Vaccination and risk of lone atrial fibrillation in the active component United States military.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the hypothesis that receipt of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) increases the risk of atrial fibrillation in the absence of identifiable underlying risk factors or structural heart disease (lone atrial fibrillation). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study among U.S. military personnel who were on active duty during the period from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2006. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes were used to identify individuals diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in the Defense Medical Surveillance System, and electronic records were screened to include only individuals without evidence of predisposing medical conditions. We used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate the risk of lone atrial fibrillation after exposure to AVA. We also evaluated possible associations with influenza and smallpox vaccines. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 2,957,091individuals followed for 11,329,746 person-years of service. Of these, 2,435 met our case definition for lone atrial fibrillation, contributing approximately 8,383 person-years of service. 1,062,176 (36%) individuals received at least one dose of AVA; the median person time observed post-exposure was 3.6 years. We found no elevated risk of diagnosed lone atrial fibrillation associated with AVA (adjusted risk ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval = 0.90, 1.09; p = 0.84). No elevated risk was observed for lone atrial fibrillation associated with influenza or smallpox vaccines given during military service. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an increased risk of lone atrial fibrillation after AVA, influenza or smallpox vaccine. These findings may be helpful in planning future vaccine safety research.

Update From the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts, meets 3 times per year to develop recommendations for vaccine use in the United States. The group has 15 voting members, and each member's term is 4 years. ACIP members and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff discuss the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccine research, effectiveness, safety data, and clinical trial results. Representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics (J. D. C. and D. W. K.) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (S. T. O.) are present as liaisons to the ACIP. The ACIP met on June 20 and 21, 2018, to discuss influenza vaccine effectiveness and safety, anthrax vaccination in the setting of a mass exposure, human papillomavirus vaccine, mumps vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, and pneumococcal vaccination among adults.

Update From the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts, meets 3 times per year to develop recommendations for vaccine use in the United States. There are 15 voting members, and their terms are for 4 years. ACIP members and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff discuss the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccine research, effectiveness, safety data, and clinical trial results. Representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics (including D. W. K.) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society are present as liaisons to the ACIP. In the February 2018 meeting, important votes on the use of influenza vaccine and hepatitis vaccines were held, and updates on human papillomavirus, meningococcal, and anthrax vaccines, among others, were provided.

What Is the Predictive Value of Animal Models for Vaccine Efficacy in Humans? The Importance of Bridging Studies and Species-Independent Correlates of Protection.

Animal models have played a pivotal role in all stages of vaccine development. Their predictive value for vaccine effectiveness depends on the pathogen, the robustness of the animal challenge model, and the correlates of protection (if known). This article will cover key questions regarding bridging animal studies to efficacy trials in humans. Examples include human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in which animal protection after vaccination with heterologous prototype virus-like particles (VLPs) predicted successful efficacy trials in humans, and a recent approval of anthrax vaccine in accordance with the "Animal Rule." The establishment of animal models predictive of vaccine effectiveness in humans has been fraught with difficulties with low success rate to date. Challenges facing the use of animal models for vaccine development against Ebola and HIV will be discussed.

Safety of inadvertent anthrax vaccination during pregnancy: An analysis of birth defects in the U.S. military population, 2003-2010.

BACKGROUND: Anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) vaccination is compulsory for United States military servicemembers with operational indicators. As the number of female military servicemembers has increased, so has the chance of inadvertent AVA vaccination during pregnancy. Building upon past analyses assessing AVA vaccination during pregnancy and birth defects risk, this study sought to determine if inadvertent AVA vaccination during pregnancy is significantly associated with risk of birth defects after adjusting for other potential risk factors. METHODS: The study population included 126,839 liveborn infants in the Department of Defense Birth and Infant Health Registry (2003-2010). Mothers were categorized by AVA vaccination exposure timing in relation to pregnancy. Infant medical records were assessed for birth defect diagnoses within the first year of life. Multivariable logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Infants of first trimester AVA vaccinated mothers versus receipt at any other time point (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.93-1.29) were not at higher odds of birth defects in adjusted models. Infants of mothers vaccinated prepregnancy versus postpregnancy had a 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01-1.22) higher odds of having a birth defect. Vaccination postpregnancy versus never vaccinated revealed a 10% lower odds of birth defects (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: No strong associations between inadvertent AVA vaccination during pregnancy and birth defects risk were observed. Marginal associations between prepregnancy vaccination or never vaccinated women and birth defects risk was observed when compared to postpregnancy vaccination. These findings may be due to self-selection and/or reverse causation bias when assessing comparisons with postpregnancy vaccination, and a "healthy worker" effect when assessing comparisons with women never vaccinated.

Anthrax Vaccine and the Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the U.S. Military: A Case-Control Study.

U.S. military personnel assigned to areas deemed to be at high risk for anthrax attack receive Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA). Few cases of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been reported in persons who received AVA. Using a matched case-control study design, we assessed the relationship of RA and SLE with AVA vaccination using the Defense Medical Surveillance System. We identified potential cases using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes and confirmed cases with medical record review and rheumatologist adjudication. Using conditional logistic regression, we estimated odds ratios (OR) for AVA exposure during time intervals ranging from 90 to 1,095 days before disease onset. Among 77 RA cases, 13 (17%) had ever received AVA. RA cases were no more likely than controls to have received AVA when looking back 1,095 days (OR: 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-2.19) but had greater odds of exposure in the prior 90 days (OR: 3.93; 95% CI: 1.08-14.27). Among the 39 SLE cases, 5 (13%) had ever received AVA; no significant difference in receipt of AVA was found when compared with controls (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.26-3.25). AVA was associated with recent onset RA, but did not increase the risk of developing RA in the long term.

Unique Inflammatory Mediators and Specific IgE Levels Distinguish Local from Systemic Reactions after Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed Vaccination.

Although the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) has an adverse event (AE) profile similar to those of other adult vaccines, 30 to 70% of queried AVA vaccinees report AEs. AEs appear to be correlated with certain demographic factors, but the underlying immunologic pathways are poorly understood. We evaluated a cohort of 2,421 AVA vaccinees and found 153 (6.3%) reported an AE. Females were more likely to experience AEs (odds ratio [OR] = 6.0 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 4.2 to 8.7]; P < 0.0001). Individuals 18 to 29 years of age were less likely to report an AE than individuals aged 30 years or older (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.22 to 0.43]; P < 0.0001). No significant effects were observed for African, European, Hispanic, American Indian, or Asian ancestry after correcting for age and sex. Additionally, 103 AEs were large local reactions (LLRs), whereas 53 AEs were systemic reactions (SRs). In a subset of our cohort vaccinated 2 to 12 months prior to plasma sample collection (n = 75), individuals with LLRs (n = 33) had higher protective-antigen (PA)-specific IgE levels than matched, unaffected vaccinated individuals (n = 50; P < 0.01). Anti-PA IgE was not associated with total plasma IgE, hepatitis B-specific IgE, or anti-PA IgG in individuals who reported an AE or in matched, unaffected AVA-vaccinated individuals. IP-10 was also elevated in sera of individuals who developed LLRs (P < 0.05). Individuals reporting SRs had higher levels of systemic inflammation as measured from C-reactive protein (P < 0.01). Thus, LLRs and SRs are mediated by distinct pathways. LLRs are associated with a vaccine-specific IgE response and IP-10, whereas SRs demonstrate increased systemic inflammation without a skewed cytokine profile.

Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of three vaccination schedules and two dose levels of AV7909 vaccine for anthrax post-exposure prophylaxis in healthy adults.

AV7909 vaccine being developed for post-exposure prophylaxis of anthrax disease may require fewer vaccinations and reduced amount of antigen to achieve an accelerated immune response over BioThrax(®) (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed). A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, BioThrax vacccine-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of three intramuscular vaccination schedules and two dose levels of AV7909 in 168 healthy adults. Subjects were randomized at a 4:3:2:4:2 ratio to 5 groups: (1) AV7909 on Days 0/14; (2) AV7909 on Days 0/28; (3) AV7909 on Days 0/14/28; (4) half dose AV7909 on Days 0/14/28; and (5) BioThrax vaccine on Days 0/14/28. Vaccinations in all groups were well tolerated. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 79% for AV7909 subjects and 65% for BioThrax subjects; 92% of AV7909 subjects and 87% of BioThrax subjects having AEs reported Grade 1-2 AEs. No serious AEs were assessed as potentially vaccine-related, and no AEs of potential autoimmune etiology were reported. There was no discernible pattern indicative of a safety concern across groups in the incidence or severity of reactogenicity events. Groups 2-4 achieved success for the primary endpoint, demonstrated by a lower 95% confidence limit of the percentage of subjects with protective toxin neutralizing antibody NF50 values (≥0.56) to be ≥40% at Day 63. Group 1 marginally missed the criterion (lower bound 95% confidence limit of 39.5%). Immune responses were above this threshold for Groups 1, 3 and 4 at Day 28 and all groups at Day 42. Further study of an AV7909 two-dose schedule given 2 weeks apart is warranted in light of the favorable tolerability profile and immunogenicity response relative to three doses of BioThrax vaccine, as well as preliminary data from nonclinical studies indicating similar immune responses correlate with higher survival for AV7909 than BioThrax vaccine.

Analysis of pregnancy and infant health outcomes among women in the National Smallpox Vaccine in Pregnancy Registry who received Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed.

The National Smallpox Vaccine in Pregnancy Registry (NSVIPR) actively follows women inadvertently vaccinated with smallpox vaccine during or shortly before pregnancy to evaluate their reproductive health outcomes. Approximately 65% of NSVIPR participants also inadvertently received Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA) while pregnant, providing a ready opportunity to evaluate pregnancy and infant health outcomes among these women. AVA-exposed pregnancies were ascertained using NSVIPR and electronic healthcare data. Rates of pregnancy loss and infant health outcomes, including major birth defects, were compared between AVA-exposed and AVA-unexposed pregnancies. Analyses included AVA-exposed and AVA-unexposed pregnant women who also received smallpox vaccine 28 days prior to or during pregnancy. Rates of adverse outcomes among the AVA-exposed group were similar to or lower than expected when compared with published reference rates and the AVA-unexposed population. The findings provide reassurance of the safety of AVA when inadvertently received by a relatively young and healthy population during pregnancy.

Evaluation of anthrax vaccine safety in 18 to 20 year olds: A first step towards age de-escalation studies in adolescents.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA, BioThrax(®)) is recommended for post-exposure prophylaxis administration for the US population in response to large-scale Bacillus anthracis spore exposure. However, no information exists on AVA use in children and ethical barriers exist to performing pre-event pediatric AVA studies. A Presidential Ethics Commission proposed a potential pathway for such studies utilizing an age de-escalation process comparing safety and immunogenicity data from 18 to 20 year-olds to older adults and if acceptable proceeding to evaluations in younger adolescents. We conducted exploratory summary re-analyses of existing databases from 18 to 20 year-olds (n=74) compared to adults aged 21 to 29 years (n=243) who participated in four previous US government funded AVA studies. METHODS: Data extracted from studies included elicited local injection-site and systemic adverse events (AEs) following AVA doses given subcutaneously at 0, 2, and 4 weeks. Additionally, proportions of subjects with ≥4-fold antibody rises from baseline to post-second and post-third AVA doses (seroresponse) were obtained. RESULTS: Rates of any elicited local AEs were not significantly different between younger and older age groups for local events (79.2% vs. 83.8%, P=0.120) or systemic events (45.4% vs. 50.5%, P=0.188). Robust and similar proportions of seroresponses to vaccination were observed in both age groups. CONCLUSIONS: AVA was safe and immunogenic in 18 to 20 year-olds compared to 21 to 29 year-olds. These results provide initial information to anthrax and pediatric specialists if AVA studies in adolescents are required.

Immunogenicity and safety of four different dosing regimens of anthrax vaccine adsorbed for post-exposure prophylaxis for anthrax in adults.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to implement post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in case of an anthrax bioterror event are needed. To increase the number of doses of vaccine available we evaluated reducing the amount of vaccine administered at each of the vaccinations, and reducing the number of doses administered. METHODS: Healthy male and non-pregnant female subjects between the ages of 18 and 65 were enrolled and randomized 1:1:1:1 to one of four study arms to receive 0.5 mL (standard dose) of vaccine subcutaneously (SQ) at: (A) days 0, 14; (B) days 0 and 28; (C) days 0, 14, and 28; or (D) 0.25 mL at days 0, 14, and 28. A booster was provided on day 180. Safety was assessed after each dose. Blood was obtained on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, 84, 100, 180, and 201 and both Toxin Neutralizing antibody and anti-PA IgG antibody measured. RESULTS: Almost all subjects developed some local reactions with 46-64% reported to be of moderate severity and 3.3% severe during the primary series. Vaccine groups that included a day 14 dose induced a ≥ 4 fold antibody rise in more subjects on days 21, 28, and 35 than the arm without a day 14 dose. However, schedules with a full day 28 dose induced higher peak levels of antibody that persisted longer. The half dose regimen did not induce antibody as well as the full dose study arms. CONCLUSION: Depending on the extent of the outbreak, effectiveness of antibiotics and availability of vaccine, the full dose 0, 28 or 0, 14, 28 schedules may have advantages.

Evaluation of sex, race, body mass index and pre-vaccination serum progesterone levels and post-vaccination serum anti-anthrax protective immunoglobulin G on injection site adverse events following anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) in the CDC AVA human clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Anthrax vaccine adsorbed (AVA) administered intramuscularly (IM) results in fewer adverse events (AEs) than subcutaneous (SQ) administration. Women experience more AEs than men. Antibody response, female hormones, race, and body mass index (BMI) may contribute to increased frequency of reported injection site AEs. METHODS: We analyzed data from the CDC AVA human clinical trial. This double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial enrolled 1563 participants and followed them through 8 injections (AVA or placebo) over a period of 42 months. For the trial's vaccinated cohort (n=1267), we used multivariable logistic regression to model the effects of study group (SQ or IM), sex, race, study site, BMI, age, and post-vaccination serum anti-PA IgG on occurrence of AEs of any severity grade. Also, in a women-only subset (n=227), we assessed effect of pre-vaccination serum progesterone level and menstrual phase on AEs. RESULTS: Participants who received SQ injections had significantly higher proportions of itching, redness, swelling, tenderness and warmth compared to the IM study group after adjusting for other risk factors. The proportions of redness, swelling, tenderness and warmth were all significantly lower in blacks vs. non-black participants. We found arm motion limitation, itching, pain, swelling and tenderness were more likely to occur in participants with the highest anti-PA IgG concentrations. In the SQ study group, redness and swelling were more common for obese participants compared to participants who were not overweight. Females had significantly higher proportions of all AEs compared to males. Menstrual phase was not associated with any AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Female and non-black participants had a higher proportion of AVA associated AEs and higher anti-PA IgG concentrations. Antibody responses to other vaccines may also vary by sex and race. Further studies may provide better understanding for higher proportions of AEs in women and non-black participants.